Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 59 

of section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph 

(a) of this section, in a font size and 

color that are easy to read and that 

stands out against the background, on 

the website ‘‘home’’ page and on the 

website ‘‘about’’ page. The conspicuous 

statement on these pages shall also 

include a hyperlink to the registrant’s 

filings on the Department’s FARA 

website. Each individual post to the 

website for or in the interests of the 

registrant’s foreign principal shall bear 

the conspicuous statement, with a 

hyperlink to the registrant’s filings on 

the Department’s FARA website. If the 

internet platform or website does not 

provide sufficient space for the full 

conspicuous statement, as set forth in 

section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph (a) 

of this section, the registrant or anyone 

acting on the registrant’s behalf must 

include in each comment or post on the 

internet platform or website an 

embedded image of the conspicuous 

statement on the face of the comment or 

post; that image shall contain the term 

‘‘FARA,’’ the registrant’s registration 

number, and an electronic link to the 

registrant’s filings on the Department’s 

FARA website. The conspicuous 

statement in the embedded image must 

be in a font size and color that are easy 

to read and that stand out against the 

background. 

(g) Internet website or platform for 

which registrant does not have 

administrative rights. Informational 

materials posted by a registrant on an 

internet platform or website, which is 

not hosted or controlled by the 

registrant, or for which the registrant 

does not otherwise have administrative 

rights, shall include the conspicuous 

statement as set forth in section 4(b) of 

the Act and paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. Each individual post to the 

website for or in the interests of the 

registrant’s foreign principal shall bear 

the conspicuous statement, with a 

hyperlink to the registrant’s filings on 

the Department’s FARA website. If the 

internet platform or website does not 

provide sufficient space for the full 

conspicuous statement, as set forth in 

section 4(b) of the Act and paragraph (a) 

of this section, the registrant or anyone 

acting on the registrant’s behalf must 

include in each comment or post on the 

internet platform or website an 

embedded image of the conspicuous 

statement on the face of the comment or 

post along with the term ‘‘FARA’’ with 

the registrant’s registration number 

containing an electronic link to the 

registrant’s filings on the Department’s 

FARA website. The conspicuous 

statement in the embedded image must 

be in a font size and color that are easy 

to read and that stand out against the 

background. 

(h) Defined terms. For the purpose of 

section 4(e) of the Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘political propaganda’’ 

has the same meaning as ‘‘informational 

materials,’’ the labeling of which is 

governed by paragraphs (a) through (g) 

of this section; 

(2) Any ‘‘request’’ made to any agency 

or official of the Government for or in 

the interests of a foreign principal 

includes all communications related to 

that request even if the communication 

itself does not contain a specific request 

for information or advice within the 

meaning of section 4(e); for example, all 

communications, oral or written, 

involved in scheduling a meeting to 

discuss the requested information or 

advice must be prefaced with or 

accompanied by a true and accurate 

statement to the effect that such a 

person is registered as an agent of a 

foreign principal, as required by section 

4(e); 

§ 5.402 [Removed] 

■ 17. Remove § 5.402. 

■ 18. Revise § 5.600 to read as follows: 

§ 5.600 Public examination of records. 

Registration statements and 

supplements, amendments, exhibits 

thereto, informational materials, and 

Dissemination Reports are available to 

the public on the Department’s FARA 

website. To review any such statements 

or any publicly available materials filed 

pursuant to FARA not available on the 

Department’s FARA website, members 

of the public shall schedule an 

appointment through the FARA Unit to 

examine such records on an official 

business day, during the posted public 

office hours of operation. 

§ 5.601 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 5.601 amend paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c) by removing ‘‘Registration 

Unit’’ each place it appears and adding 

in its place ‘‘FARA Unit.’’ 

■ 20. Revise § 5.800 to read as follows: 

§ 5.800 Ten-day filing requirement. 

The 10-day filing requirement 

provided by section 8(g) of the Act shall 

be deemed satisfied if the amendment to 

the registration statement is submitted 

through the Department’s FARA eFile 

system no later than the 10th day of the 

period. 

■ 21. Revise § 5.1101 to read as follows: 

§ 5.1101 Copies of the report to Congress. 

Copies of the report to Congress 

mandated by 22 U.S.C. 621 shall be 

made available to the public on the 

Department’s FARA website free of 

charge. 

Dated: December 19, 2024. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30871 Filed 12–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–PF–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 14 and 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 23–161, 10–213, 03–123; 

FCC 24–95; FR ID 268783] 

Access to Video Conferencing 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on 

whether to amend the accessibility rules 

for interoperable video conferencing 

services (IVCS) to include additional 

performance objectives addressing textto-speech and speech-to-speech 

functionality; automatic sign-language 

interpretation; additional user interface 

control functions; access to video 

conferencing for people who are blind 

or have low vision; and access to video 

conference for people with cognitive or 

mobility disabilities. The Commission 

also seeks further comment on whether 

and how the telecommunications relay 

services (TRS) Fund should support 

team interpreting in video conferences 

and whether additional rules are needed 

to facilitate the integration and 

appropriate use of TRS with video 

conferencing. 

DATES: Comments are due February 3, 

2025. Reply comments are due March 3, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 23–161, 

10–213, and 03–123 by the following 

method: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wallace, Disability Rights 

Office, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–2716, or 

William.Wallace@fcc.gov; or Ike 

Ofobike, Disability Rights Office, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at (202) 418–1028, or 

Ike.Ofobike@fcc.gov. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
60 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), document FCC 24–95, 

adopted on September 26, 2024, 

released on September 27, 2024, in CG 

Docket Nos. 23–161, 10–213, and 03– 

123. This summary is based on 

document FCC 24–95, the full text of 

which can be accessed electronically via 

the Commission’s Electronic Document 

Manage System website at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs, or via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) website at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments. 

Comments may be filed using ECFS. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. 

All filings must be addressed to the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary are accepted 

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the 

FCC’s mailing contractor at 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. All hand deliveries must be held 

together with rubber bands or fasteners. 

Any envelopes and boxes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial courier deliveries (any 

deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) 

must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 

Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. 

• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service 

First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and 

Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. 

• To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530. 

Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall 

be treated as a permit-but-disclose 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. 47 CFR 

1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the 

Commission’s rules or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act: The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each 

agency, in providing notice of a 

rulemaking, to post online a brief plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule. 

The required summary of the FNPRM is 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

Document FCC 24–95 may contain 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Synopsis 

Background 

1. Under section 716 of the 

Communications Act, as amended (the 

Act), 47 U.S.C. 617, providers of 

advanced communications services 

(ACS) and manufacturers of equipment 

used for ACS must make such services 

and equipment accessible to and usable 

by people with disabilities, if 

achievable. Service providers and 

manufacturers may comply with section 

716 of the Act either by building 

accessibility features into their services 

and equipment or by choosing to use 

third-party applications, peripheral 

devices, software, hardware, or 

customer premises equipment (CPE) 

that are available to individuals with 

disabilities at nominal cost. If 

accessibility is not achievable through 

either of these means, then 

manufacturers and service providers 

must make their products and services 

compatible with existing peripheral 

devices or specialized CPE commonly 

used by people with disabilities to 

achieve access, subject to the 

achievability criterion. The Commission 

is directed to adopt ‘‘performance 

objectives to ensure the accessibility, 

usability, and compatibility of advanced 

communications services and the 

equipment used for such services.’’ 

2. The Act defines advanced 

communications services as: (A) 

interconnected Voice over internet 

Protocol (VoIP) service; (B) noninterconnected VoIP service; (C) 

electronic messaging service; (D) 

interoperable video conferencing 

service; and (E) any audio or video 

communications service used by 

inmates for the purpose of 

communicating with individuals 

outside of the correctional facility where 

the inmate is held, regardless of 

technology used. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). 

Interoperable video conferencing 

service, in turn, is defined as: A service 

that provides real-time video 

communications, including audio, to 

enable users to share information of the 

user’s choosing. 47 U.S.C. 153(27). 

3. Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Interoperable Video Conferencing 

Services. Enacted in 1990, Title IV of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 

codified as section 225 of the Act, 

directs the Commission to ‘‘ensure that 

interstate and intrastate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 61 

telecommunications relay services are 

available, to the extent possible and in 

the most efficient manner,’’ to people in 

the United States with hearing or speech 

disabilities. TRS are defined as 

‘‘telephone transmission services’’ 

enabling such persons to communicate 

by wire or radio ‘‘in a manner that is 

functionally equivalent to the ability of 

[a person without hearing or speech 

disabilities] to communicate using voice 

communication services.’’ There are 

currently three forms of internet-based 

TRS: Video Relay Service (VRS) ‘‘allows 

people with hearing or speech 

disabilities who use sign language to 

communicate with voice telephone 

users through video equipment and a 

live communications assistant (CA);’’ 

Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP 

Relay) allows an individual with a 

hearing or speech disability to 

communicate with voice telephone 

users by transmitting text via the 

internet; and internet Protocol 

Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) 

permits a person with hearing loss to 

have a telephone conversation while 

reading captions of what the other party 

is saying on an internet-connected 

device. The provision of internet-based 

TRS is supported by the Interstate TRS 

Fund, maintained through mandatory 

contributions from providers of 

telecommunications service, 

interconnected VoIP service, and noninterconnected VoIP service. Three noninternet-based forms of TRS—traditional 

TRS using text telephony (TTY), 

Captioned Telephone Service (CTS), 

and Speech-to-Speech Relay (STS)—are 

also supported in part by the TRS Fund 

and are available through state TRS 

programs. 

4. To address concerns about the 

availability of TRS on video 

conferencing platforms, the Commission 

requested the Disability Advisory 

Committee (DAC) to study the matter. In 

its 2022 report, the DAC recommended 

that the FCC resolve these concerns by: 

facilitating a technical mechanism for 

TRS providers to natively interconnect 

TRS services, including video, audio, 

captioning, and text-based relay to video 

conferencing platforms; ensuring that 

users can seamlessly initiate TRS from 

the provider of their choice on any 

video conferencing platform; addressing 

the integration of CAs and the overall 

accessibility challenges of video 

conferencing platforms; and, clarifying 

the legal ability of TRS providers to seek 

compensation for service provided for 

video conferences from the TRS Fund. 

5. In 2023, the Commission proposed 

IVCS-specific amendments to the 

performance objectives in the part 14 

rules on accessibility of ACS and 

amendments to the TRS rules to 

authorize and facilitate the provision of 

TRS in video conferences. 88 FR 52088, 

September 7, 2023 (2023 Video 

Conferencing Notice). Specifically, the 

Commission proposed to require IVCS 

providers to include speech-to-text (i.e., 

captioning of all voice communications) 

and text-to-speech capability, to enable 

the use of sign language interpreting, 

and to include accessibility settings in 

the user interface controls. 

6. Regarding its TRS rules, the 

Commission proposed to clarify that the 

integrated provision of TRS in video 

conferences can be supported by the 

Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission 

also proposed additional rule 

amendments specific to video 

conferences, addressing VRS user 

validation and call detail supporting 

compensation requests; participation of 

VRS CAs and the use of multiple CAs 

and multiple VRS providers; and the 

ability of VRS users and CAs to turn off 

their cameras when not actively 

participating in a video conference. 

Regarding TRS generally, the 

Commission proposed to amend the 

confidentiality requirements for TRS 

CAs and providers in the context of 

video conferences and prohibit 

exclusivity agreements between TRS 

providers and IVCS providers. Finally, 

the Commission sought comment on 

how to avoid TRS substituting for 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities that employers, educational 

institutions, health care organizations, 

and government agencies are required to 

provide under other applicable laws, 

including whether to allow TRS users to 

reserve a CA in advance of a video 

conference. 

7. On September 27, 2024, the 

Commission released the 2024 Video 

Conferencing Second Report and Order 

(2024 Video Conferencing Order), 

published at 89 FR 100878, December 

13, 2024, adopting new or modified 

performance objectives to define the 

outcomes needed for IVCS accessibility. 

Part 14 Issues 

8. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

seeks additional comment on whether to 

adopt certain performance objectives 

proposed in the 2023 Video 

Conferencing Notice or in comments on 

that Notice, for which the current record 

is insufficient to enable a full 

assessment. 

9. Given the emergence of video 

conferencing as a basic communication 

vehicle for almost all Americans, and 

the inconsistent implementation of 

accessibility to date in the video 

conferencing environment, the 

Commission seeks to assess whether 

additional, more specific performance 

objectives are needed for ensuring 

accessibility and usability in the 

specific context of IVCS. Like all the 

performance objectives currently 

included in part 14 of the Commission’s 

rules, these performance objectives, if 

adopted, would further define what 

‘‘accessible’’ and ‘‘usable’’ mean in the 

IVCS context. IVCS service providers 

and manufacturers would be required to 

meet these objectives to the extent that 

they are achievable. However, the 

Commission also seeks to ensure that 

any additional IVCS performance 

objectives it adopts are relevant to 

various types of IVCS and are currently 

achievable by at least some IVCS 

providers. The Commission seeks to 

avoid limiting the incentives and 

opportunities for innovative design in 

this rapidly developing industry sector, 

or adopting rules so specific as to 

constitute de facto mandatory technical 

standards. In this regard, the 

Commission notes that § 14.20(b)(1) of 

its rules requires ACS providers and 

manufacturers to ‘‘consider performance 

objectives set forth in § 14.21 of its rules 

at the design stage as early as possible.’’ 

47 CFR 14.20(b)(1). In some instances, 

adopting more specific performance 

objectives may help focus the 

accessibility design processes of IVCS 

providers on solutions that are most 

likely to be relevant, effective, and 

achievable. In other instances, more 

specific performance objectives might 

unnecessarily constrain design choices. 

10. Regarding each of the proposals 

discussed below, the Commission seeks 

further comment on the specific benefits 

and costs of the proposal, including: 

How would the proposed performance 

objective promote accessibility of IVCS 

for people with disabilities? Is the 

relevant accessibility problem already 

sufficiently addressed by the more 

general performance objectives set forth 

in the existing rules? Is the proposed 

performance objective likely to be 

achievable for at least some IVCS 

providers? For example, are there 

commercially available products or 

services that would meet the 

performance objective? Would the 

proposed performance objective unduly 

constrain the design of video 

conferencing platforms and services— 

and if so, how, specifically would it do 

so? 

11. The Commission emphasizes that 

commercial availability, or lack thereof, 

is not dispositive of whether a 

performance objective is likely to be 

achievable. However, it may be relevant, 

along with other information, to a 

preliminary assessment of the overall 

likelihood that a performance objective 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

can be accomplished by at least some 

IVCS providers with reasonable effort or 

expense. 

12. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether each proposed 

performance objective is relevant and 

applicable to all IVCS, or only certain 

subcategories of IVCS? The IVCS 

subcategory encompasses a wide variety 

of video communication services. Some, 

like Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft 

Teams, or Facebook Messenger, are 

globally popular platforms with 

millions of active daily users. Others, 

like Discord, Signal, or Slack, have 

smaller customer bases and may cater to 

more targeted audiences. Some video 

conferencing applications are designed 

primarily for one-to-one video calling. 

For example, Slack’s ‘‘Huddles’’ feature 

allows for video conference calls, but 

the free version of the service limits the 

call to two participants. Other possible 

examples include dating apps like 

Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge. Some of the 

proposed performance objectives may 

not be relevant on such platforms. The 

relevance of certain kinds of 

accessibility solutions also may vary 

depending on the type of device used to 

access a video conference. In 

determining whether to adopt a specific 

performance objective, to what extent 

should the Commission consider its 

relevance and applicability to a wide 

range of video conferencing services? 

The Commission also invites 

commenters to submit information 

about the range of video conferencing 

services currently offered or under 

development and how they currently 

address accessibility. For example, are 

there video conferencing platforms that 

exclusively offer one-on-one 

communication, without the ability to 

allow group calls? Are there platforms 

that operate exclusively on particular 

kinds of devices, such as mobile 

phones? 

13. In addition to these general 

questions, which apply to all the part 14 

of the Commission’s rules proposals 

discussed herein, the Commission seeks 

comment on certain aspects of 

individual proposals and particular 

accessibility issues, as discussed below. 

14. Addressing Speech Disabilities. In 

the 2023 Video Conferencing Notice, the 

Commission proposed to amend 

§ 14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its rules, which 

specifies that ACS be operable in ‘‘at 

least one mode that does not require 

user speech,’’ by adding the further 

specification stating: ‘‘For interoperable 

video conferencing services, provide at 

least text-to-speech functionality.’’ 

15. The Commission seeks further 

comment on whether a more specific 

performance objective is needed to 

ensure accessibility for people with 

speech disabilities, if achievable. The 

record reflects that there is more than 

one mode in which IVCS can potentially 

be made accessible for people with 

speech disabilities, for example, by 

providing text-to-speech functionality, 

or providing speech-to-speech 

functionality. Regarding the latter 

solution, the record indicates that 

automatic speech recognition 

technology has been applied to develop 

products that automatically convert 

speech that is difficult to understand to 

speech that is more understandable. In 

addition, the Commission notes that 

enabling a connection to VRS or other 

sign language interpretation services can 

also address accessibility for people 

with speech disabilities who also know 

ASL. The Commission seeks further 

comment on whether to modify this rule 

to specify text-to-speech functionality, 

speech-to-speech functionality, or both. 

16. To what extent are text-to-speech 

and speech-to-speech products and 

services commercially available and 

widely used by people with speech 

disabilities? What are the potential 

benefits and costs of implementing textto-speech and speech-to-speech 

functionality? How can such products 

or services be integrated with 

videoconferencing platforms? How do 

text-to-speech and speech-to-speech 

functionalities compare, as accessibility 

solutions? 

17. Sign Language Interpretation. The 

Commission seeks further comment on 

whether additional specificity is needed 

in the performance objective for sign 

language interpretation. A commenter 

argues that this performance objective 

should not merely specify that IVCS 

enable the use of sign language 

interpretation, but actually provide it (or 

more specifically, provide ASL 

interpretation). The Commission seeks 

further comment on the need for and 

feasibility of this proposal. If VRS and 

video remote interpreting (VRI) are 

generally available to IVCS users on an 

integrated basis, to what extent would 

there be a need for IVCS providers to 

also provide sign language 

interpretation? Would such a 

performance objective likely be 

achievable for IVCS providers, e.g., by 

using automated sign language 

interpretation software? While ASR 

speech-to-text technology has been in 

development since 1952 and has seen 

widespread commercial adoption across 

various sectors, automatic sign language 

interpretation is a nascent technology. 

To what extent has the accuracy and 

reliability of automatic sign language 

interpretation been established? 

18. User Control of Accessibility 

Features. In the 2024 Video 

Conferencing Order, recognizing that 

user control of features is often 

necessary for accessibility, the 

Commission adopted a new 

performance objective specifying that 

IVCS and covered equipment and 

software used with such services shall: 

(i) provide user interface control 

functions that permit users to activate 

and adjust the display of captions, 

speakers, and signers, and other features 

for which user interface control is 

necessary for accessibility. 

19. Some commenters sought a more 

detailed performance objective that 

would list the specific aspects of 

captions, participant windows, and 

other features that must be subject to 

user control. For example, a commenter 

recommended that the Commission 

specify that users be able to customize 

the appearance of captions, including 

options for font size, font edges (i.e., 

outline, shadow, etc. to work without 

background) color and background 

(color and transparency level). 

20. The performance objective 

adopted in the 2024 Video Conferencing 

Order requires IVCS providers to allow 

video conference participants to 

independently alter the font, size, 

location, color, and opacity of the 

captions and caption backgrounds 

appearing on the participant’s screen. It 

also requires, where relevant, 

participant access to pinning and multipinning, spotlighting, and video 

window reconfiguration features. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

additional user-control performance 

objectives are necessary to further 

ensure accessibility of IVCS. 

21. A commenter recommends that 

IVCS performance objectives should 

explicitly address the need for screenreader verbosity controls. The 

Commission notes that the adopted 

performance objective specifies that 

users be able to activate and adjust 

features for which user interface control 

is necessary for accessibility. Thus, 

verbosity controls, among other user 

controls, are included in the 

performance objective to the extent that 

they are necessary for accessibility. The 

Commission seeks additional comment 

on the particular aspects of screenreader verbosity control that are most 

important in the video conference 

setting, and any other considerations 

that should be taken into account in 

framing a performance objective that 

specifically addresses verbosity control. 

22. A commenter also suggests that 

IVCS users’ accessibility preferences 

should be stored and retained within 

the IVCS platform, so users will not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 63 

have to change the settings each time 

they use the service. To what extent is 

this capability necessary for 

accessibility? Are there technical 

challenges to implementing such a 

feature? If so, what, and how severe, are 

those challenges? Should the settings be 

tied to the video conferencing service, 

or to the type of device used to access 

it? For example, should accessibility 

settings on a mobile version of an IVCS 

platform be retained when accessing the 

platform’s web application? 

23. Other Accessibility Proposals. A 

commenter recommends performance 

objectives specifying that IVCS provide 

a gallery view mode and ensure that a 

sufficient number of videos is supported 

without degrading the quality of the 

video or audio. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. In what 

respect are such performance objectives 

necessary for accessibility? What 

variables, if any, could impact the 

quality of a user’s video or audio if a 

user elects to have numerous video 

windows displayed? What variables, if 

any, could impact an IVCS provider’s 

ability to provide high-quality videos? 

24. The commenter also suggests a 

performance objective requiring that 

video functionality, screen sharing, 

video window re-sizing, and video 

sharing be compatible with tablets. The 

commenter states that the performance 

objective can be achieved by designing 

the IVCS user interface to be tabletfriendly, i.e., able to adapt between 

different screen sizes and allow for 

multi-touch gestures and split-screen 

multitasking. Another commenter 

objects to this proposal, contending that 

tablet compatibility represents a de 

facto technical mandate. The 

Commission does not mandate that any 

particular IVCS must be able to be used 

on a tablet. However, the Commission 

recognizes that many IVCS providers 

choose to make their products available 

on tablets. Accordingly, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to adopt a 

performance objective specifying that, 

where IVCS is available on tablets, it 

provide the functionalities described in 

the earlier commenter’s proposal. 

Would provision of the functionalities 

the commenter describes, pose 

unusually difficult design or technical 

challenges? To what degree do current 

IVCS offerings provide such devicespecific functionality? Should the 

Commission consider device-specific 

performance objectives? 

25. The Commission also seeks 

further comment on a commenter’s 

proposal to require IVCS providers to 

offer dedicated text and video side 

channels. According to the commenter, 

these additional channels are necessary 

to facilitate communication between 

sign language interpreters and sign 

language users, and between multiple 

interpreters in ‘‘team interpreting’’ 

scenarios. Another commenter objects to 

this proposal, countering that some 

IVCS platforms do not offer text-based 

communication, and requiring them to 

do so would constitute a technical 

mandate and an economic burden. 

Additionally, the commenter contends 

that because side channels are only 

tangentially related to the video 

conference call itself, the absence of 

those channels should not affect 

compliance with the video conferencing 

rules. The Commission seeks comment 

on these arguments, as well as 

comments on the need for and 

feasibility of this proposal. 

26. Accessibility for People Who Are 

Blind or Have Low Vision. Part 14 of the 

Commission’s rules currently includes a 

generally applicable performance 

objective addressing the availability of 

visual information for people who are 

blind or have low vision, which 

specifies that visual information be 

provided through at least one mode in 

auditory form. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(2)(i). 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to amend this performance 

objective to specify the provision of 

audio description and visual image 

descriptive functionality, as well as 

compatibility with third-party visual 

image descriptive services. The term 

audio description refers to a feature that 

is required for some television and other 

video programming pursuant to the 

Commission’s part 79 rules. Under those 

rules, an audio description of a 

program’s key visual elements must be 

inserted into natural pauses in the 

program’s dialogue. The term ‘‘visual 

image description’’ refers to a related 

feature, described by a commenter as 

functionality that generates real-time 

descriptions of visual information for 

people who are blind or low vision. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which these terms refer to 

different functions in the context of 

IVCS. 

28. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on other ways that 

relevant visual information could be 

provided in auditory form. Is the 

provision of audio description of video 

and visual images implicit in the 

existing performance objective? Would a 

rule directly specifying the provision of 

audio description or visual image 

description, or both, be helpful as a way 

of clarifying IVCS provider’s obligations 

under the existing rule? To what extent 

should the FCC mandate compatibility 

with third-party description services, 

such as AIRA and Be My Eyes, if at all? 

To what extent are third-party 

description services currently being 

used in conjunction with IVCS, if at all? 

29. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the scope of visual 

information that should be provided 

through audio description in IVCS. 

Section 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission’s 

rules currently provides that it covers 

all information necessary to operate and 

use the product, including but not 

limited to, text, static or dynamic 

images, icons, labels, sounds, or 

incidental operating cues. Does 

§ 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules 

sufficiently describe the kinds of visual 

information that an IVCS provider is or 

should be required to make available in 

auditory form, or should we amend it to 

provide greater clarity? For example, 

should the Commission adopt a 

commenter’s recommendation to add 

‘‘shared documents,’’ to the list of 

information that must be made 

accessible? Should shared videos be 

included? Should coverage of shared 

documents or videos be affected by the 

extent to which a video conferencing 

service enables such sharing of visual 

information by participants? 

30. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the potential costs and 

benefits of integrating audio description 

and visual image description into IVCS 

platforms. Are audio description and 

visual image descriptive third-party 

services commercially available? What 

are the technical or financial challenges, 

if any, of integrating these services? 

How would conference call participants 

access this function? 

31. Tactile Mode. Two commenters 

request that performance objectives be 

adopted or amended to provide that 

IVCS (and other types of ACS) be 

operable and visual information be 

available in tactile mode. Section 

14.21(b)(1)(i) of the Commission’s rules 

currently states that, to be accessible, 

the input, control, and mechanical 

functions advanced communications 

services, equipment and software must 

provide at least one mode that does not 

require user vision. One of these 

commenters urges the Commission to 

modify this performance objective to 

read: ‘‘Provide auditory and tactile 

modes that do not require user vision.’’ 

32. In addition, § 14.21(b)(2)(i) of the 

Commission’s rules states that, to be 

accessible, advanced communications 

services, equipment and software must: 

‘‘Provide visual information through at 

least one mode in auditory form.’’ The 

same advocacy organization urges the 

Commission to modify this performance 

objective to read: ‘‘Provide visual 

information in both auditory and tactile 

forms.’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

33. These changes would make clearer 

what is required to make IVCS (and 

other types of ACS) accessible to people 

who are deafblind or who otherwise 

require that controls and information be 

accessed tactilely. The Commission 

seeks comment on the benefits and costs 

of these proposed changes, including 

specific examples of how they would 

improve the accessibility of covered 

services and the equipment and 

software used to access them. 

34. Accessibility for People with 

Cognitive and Mobility Disabilities. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

more specific performance objectives 

are needed to address the challenges 

people with cognitive and mobility 

disabilities face when attempting to 

access video conferencing services. 

35. Cognitive Disabilities. Currently, 

the performance objectives set forth in 

§ 14.21 of the Commission’s rules 

include a performance objective 

specifying that IVCS should: ‘‘Provide at 

least one mode that minimizes the 

cognitive, memory, language, and 

learning skills required of the user.’’ 47 

CFR 14.21(b)(1)(x). A commenter urges 

the Commission to adopt a more 

specific performance objective 

specifying the provision of ‘‘a simplified 

secure modality for initiating, 

authenticating and interfacing with a 

video conferencing session.’’ What 

would such a feature entail, and what is 

its likely cost? 

36. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a commenter’s 

recommendation to adopt a usabilityrelated performance objective for people 

with cognitive disabilities, specifying 

the provision of ‘‘plain and simple 

language and iconography on 

instructional materials on how to 

activate a video conferencing session,’’ 

to supplement the current, more general 

usability objective specifying that 

people with disabilities ‘‘have access to 

the full functionality and 

documentation for the product, 

including instructions, product 

information (including accessible 

feature information), documentation 

and technical support functionally 

equivalent to that provided to 

individuals without disabilities.’’ 47 

CFR 14.21(c). Commenters are invited to 

submit examples of instruction 

manuals, tutorials, or guides for other 

products and services that have been 

produced for people with cognitive 

disabilities. 

37. Usability Generally. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether any other amendments to the 

usability provision of the rules, 

§ 14.21(c) of the Commission’s rules, are 

needed to ensure that people with 

disabilities have access to the ‘‘full 

functionality and documentation’’ for 

IVCS, including ‘‘instructions, product 

information (including accessible 

feature information), documentation 

and technical support functionally 

equivalent to that provided to 

individuals without disabilities.’’ 

38. Mobility Disabilities. Currently, 

part 14 of the Commission’s rules 

prescribes several performance 

objectives specifying that ACS be 

operable in various ways by users with 

mobility disabilities. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether any more 

specific performance objectives are 

needed to ensure that people with 

mobility disabilities can access and use 

IVCS. For example, a commenter 

recommends that IVCS user controls be 

accessible via voice activation or other 

hands-free technologies. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

likely costs and benefits of such a 

requirement. Is this performance 

objective likely to be achievable 

independently of the devices available 

to the user? For example, could an IVCS 

provider develop or purchase a voiceactivation application for its user 

controls that is compatible with 

commonly used user devices (e.g., 

smartphones, tablets, and PCs), and 

make it available for downloading at no 

charge, or a nominal charge? What 

would be the likely cost of such a 

solution? Alternatively, could an IVCS 

provider ensure that its service is 

compatible with existing peripheral 

devices or specialized customer 

premises equipment offering voice 

activation? 

39. Application to Covered Equipment 

and Software. Manufacturers of 

equipment used for IVCS are required to 

ensure that their equipment and 

software meets the performance 

objectives of § 14.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, except to the extent 

that is not achievable. See 47 CFR 

14.20(a)(1). The Commission seeks 

comment on whether additional 

amendments to its part 14 rules are 

needed to ensure the accessibility of 

equipment and software that is used to 

provide or use IVCS. What kinds of 

equipment- and software-related 

challenges do people with disabilities 

currently face in using end-user 

equipment and software to access and 

use IVCS? Are such challenges 

sufficiently addressed by the current 

part 14 of the Commission’s rules? Are 

there specific performance objectives 

that are uniquely or peculiarly 

applicable to such equipment and 

software (as opposed to services), such 

that the Commission should amend 

§ 14.21 of its rules to include them, to 

ensure the accessibility of such 

equipment and software? 

Part 64 Issues 

40. VRS—Team Interpreting and 

Other CA-Related Issues. The 

Commission seeks further comment on 

whether to authorize the TRS Fund to 

support team interpreting by two VRS 

CAs from the same provider 

participating simultaneously in a video 

conference, and on what criteria should 

be applied for allowing such additional 

support. Under the current rules, 

providers are free to provide team 

interpreting as they deem necessary, but 

are only compensated for a single CA 

per call. While guidelines for 

professional interpreters issued by the 

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf 

(RID) reference a number of factors, 

those factors are stated in very general 

terms, leaving much room for subjective 

or discretionary judgment in their 

application. Specifically, RID considers 

the length and complexity of the 

assignment; unique needs of the persons 

being served; physical and emotional 

dynamics of the setting; and avoidance 

of repetitive stress injuries for 

interpreters. The Commission believes it 

would be preferable to adopt a brightline rule in this area. Two commenters 

assert that the duration and complexity 

of a call are two important factors in 

determining when team interpreting is 

needed, but no commenter proposes 

specific, bright-line criteria for assessing 

these or other relevant factors. 

41. With respect to the considerations 

that may support team interpreting, 

there appear to be significant differences 

between VRS and traditional 

community interpreting. With 

community interpreting, which is 

arranged by appointment, there is 

usually advance knowledge of the likely 

duration and complexity of an 

assignment. In addition, the assigned 

interpreter(s) cannot be quickly 

replaced, if that proves necessary, after 

a meeting has begun. Therefore, a 

community interpreting agency usually 

needs to determine in advance, based on 

the likely duration and complexity of 

the assignment, how many interpreters 

may be needed, and commit the time of 

those interpreters for the duration. By 

contrast, with VRS, CAs can be added, 

as needed, to a call or video conference 

whose duration is not known in 

advance. The Commission seeks 

comment on these assumptions and 

how they should affect its selection of 

criteria for authorizing team interpreting 

in VRS. 

42. In light of the above assumptions, 

would the duration of a video 

conference, standing alone, ever justify 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 65 

assignment of a second VRS CA to be 

present simultaneously with the first, 

regardless of the complexity of the video 

conference? For example, for a video 

conference with only two participants, 

would team interpreting ever be 

warranted, given that the CA can easily 

be replaced on a long-duration call? 

43. To address call complexity, if the 

Commission allows team interpreting, 

should it set a minimum number of 

participants that must be present in a 

video conference, to warrant 

compensation for a second 

simultaneous VRS CA? If so, what 

number should that be? Alternatively, 

should the Commission require a 

minimum number of registered VRS 

users—or of hearing individuals, or 

both? For video conferences with the 

requisite number of users, should the 

Commission also set a minimum period 

of time that should elapse before a 

second VRS CA is added? For example, 

should the Commission set 10 minutes, 

30 minutes, or another period as the 

minimum threshold for adding a second 

simultaneous CA to a call? Under 

current Commission rules, a VRS CA 

assigned to a call must stay with the call 

for a minimum of 10 minutes, unless the 

call ends earlier. Meanwhile, a 

commenter cites research suggesting 

that a significant loss of accuracy occurs 

after approximately thirty minutes of 

interpretation due to mental fatigue and 

also notes that ASL interpretation has 

an additional physical demand that is 

especially pronounced during long 

calls. Other studies have found that 

87.5% of interpreters sampled suffered 

from some form of repetitive stress 

injury, and that ASL interpretation was 

one of the highest-risk professions for 

ergonomic injury. Additionally, the 

commenter states that IVCS calls are on 

average seven times longer than VRS 

telephone calls. 

44. Are there other indicia of 

complexity that lend themselves to a 

bright-line rule addressing 

compensation for an additional CA? 

What call scenarios might be better 

served by having two CAs remain on the 

call taking turns, rather than having a 

brand new CA enter the call to relieve 

the current CA? Complexity of subject 

matter may be a significant factor 

influencing whether there is a need for 

two simultaneous CAs; but the subject 

matter of a video conference will not be 

known to the VRS provider or the CA 

before it starts. Are there objective 

factors that could be used to define the 

complexity of the subject matter, and 

which, after a call begins, could be 

communicated by the CA (without 

violating the Commission’s TRS 

confidentiality rule) to indicate to the 

provider that team interpreting is 

warranted for the video conference? 

45. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the TRS Fund 

should provide compensation for the 

assignment of additional VRS CAs when 

video conferences are split into breakout 

groups. The Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which these 

scenarios are likely to occur, and 

whether they would justify a special 

rule. It also seeks comment on how to 

most effectively address such scenarios. 

For example, should the Commission 

modify the rule which allows a VRS 

provider to respond to only one service 

request for a video conference (until the 

first requester drops off)—to allow 

additional CA(s) to be assigned if a 

second VRS user (or more) so requests 

after ending up in a breakout room 

without a CA? How should the 

provision of additional service to a 

breakout room be documented in call 

detail records (CDRs) submitted to the 

TRS Fund administrator? And, how 

would a second VRS CA find out which 

room to join? 

46. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to amend its rules 

(1) to provide more specific guidance on 

how a video conference participant who 

is a registered VRS user may request 

VRS (if the initially requesting VRS user 

has disconnected) and (2) to enable a 

participant to request the assignment of 

an additional CA (should the user find 

the number of CAs on the call 

insufficient for effective 

communication). The rules allow a 

registered VRS user to request that VRS 

be extended if the requesting user drops 

off; however, a commenter asserts that 

its system for automatically processing 

requests for VRS in video conferences 

does not allow such a request while a 

CA is already serving the video 

conference. Are there alternative, nonautomated means by which such 

requests could be efficiently made and 

fulfilled, without causing a significant 

risk of waste, fraud, and abuse? Could 

such a method be adapted to enable a 

participant to request the assignment of 

an additional CA to a complex video 

conference? 

47. VRS—Use of Specialized CAs in 

Video Conferences. The Commission 

seeks further comment on whether to 

amend its rules to permit VRS providers 

to assign the provision of integrated 

VRS in video conferences to CAs that 

have been specially trained to handle 

video conferences, rather than to the 

first available CA, as is otherwise 

required. In the 2024 Video 

Conferencing Order, the Commission 

finds the current record insufficient to 

support such a rule, noting that not 

every video conference may be 

sufficiently complex to require a 

specially trained CA, and that speed of 

answer, as well as the quality of TRS 

provided for traditional telephone calls 

could be affected if the Commission 

were to authorize the assignment of 

specially trained CAs from a select 

group to handle the provision of VRS in 

video conferences. 

48. A commenter contends that 

assigning video conferences to specialist 

CAs will provide a more functionally 

equivalent experience for VRS users 

participating in video conferences 

because those CAs will be trained on the 

mechanics and features of various video 

conferencing platforms, and so, will be 

able to more quickly and efficiently 

interpret for the VRS user. The 

commenter adds that specially trained 

CAs would be proficient in interpreting 

in large group settings as well as 

navigating the accessibility features of 

each specific IVCS platform, and that it 

would not be feasible to train every CA 

on these factors. Another commenter 

agrees, that handling VRS calls in a 

video conference setting requires CAs to 

possess specific skills, such as the 

ability to manage multiple users in a 

video conference and familiarity with 

various IVCS features and 

functionalities. 

49. The Commission seeks additional 

comment on the proposal. Currently, all 

VRS calls must be answered in the order 

received—a requirement that is 

intended to ensure that VRS providers 

do not discriminate against, or in favor 

of, particular VRS users. The 

Commission recognizes that the 

assignment of CAs who are specially 

trained to handle video conferences 

could raise the quality of VRS provided 

in video conferences. On the other 

hand, it seems reasonable to assume 

that, in general, CAs who qualify for 

assignment to video conferences are also 

likely to have above-average skills and 

experience in handling and interpreting 

for traditional telephone calls. The FCC 

seeks comment on this assumption. It 

also seeks comment on the specific 

challenges of video conferences that 

require special training for CAs? Do all 

types of video conferences present such 

challenges, or only those video 

conferences with many participants? 

How would the benefits of improving 

service quality for video conferences 

compare with the potential harm 

resulting from removal of highly 

qualified CAs from the queue for voice 

calls? What steps could the Commission 

take to minimize such potential harm? 

To limit such potential harm, should the 

Commission require that specially 

trained CAs participate in both call 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

queues, so that they can be available to 

interpret for voice-only calls when not 

needed for a video conference? What 

other steps could the Commission take 

to limit potential harm to service quality 

for traditional voice calls? 

50. Further, if only a limited number 

of CAs are trained to handle video 

conferences, what impact would such a 

limitation have on the speed of answer 

for video conferences? What percentage 

of VRS minutes do providers estimate 

will involve video conferences, and 

what percentage of CAs would need to 

receive special training to avoid a 

significant decline in average speed-ofanswer for video conferences, relative to 

traditional telephone calls? To avoid 

excessive delays, should the 

Commission require that a minimum 

number or percentage of CAs be trained 

to handle video conferences? The 

Commission notes that its speed-ofanswer rule for VRS is substantially less 

strict than the rule for other relay 

services. For most forms of TRS, 

providers must answer 85% of all calls 

within 10 seconds, measured daily. 47 

CFR 64.604(b)(2)(ii). For VRS, by 

contrast, providers must answer 80% of 

all VRS calls within 120 seconds, 

measured on a monthly basis. 47 CFR 

64.604(b)(2)(iii). However, servicequality competition among providers 

generally has resulted in a substantially 

lower average delay in answering VRS 

calls. 

51. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the specific amount of 

training that is necessary to ensure 

acceptable service quality for video 

conferences. What is the estimated cost 

of such training, on a per-CA basis? 

What would be the cost of training all 

of a provider’s CAs to handle video 

conferences? 

52. Finally, there is some likelihood 

that, over time, the use of VRS in video 

conferences may increase to a 

substantial percentage of total VRS 

minutes. If the Commission were to 

authorize the use of a specialist CA 

queue for video conferences, should it 

do so as a pilot program with a sunset 

date, to ensure that the impact of this 

practice and the need for it to continue 

can be assessed before deciding whether 

to adopt a more permanent rule? 

53. Integrated Provision of IP CTS. IP 

CTS is currently available for use in 

video conferences where participants 

can connect by dialing a telephone 

number. The Commission’s part 14 rules 

now provide that, unless it is not 

achievable to do so, IVCS providers 

‘‘shall enable users to connect with 

third-party captioning services’’—a 

category that includes IP CTS—‘‘so that 

captions provided by such services 

appear on the requesting user’s video 

conference screen.’’ The Commission 

also affirms that the TRS Fund supports 

the provision of TRS—including IP 

CTS—in video conferences on an 

integrated basis, as long as the service 

is provided in compliance with the TRS 

rules. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether additional amendments to 

the rules are needed to facilitate the 

integrated provision of IP CTS on a 

video conferencing platform, that is, to 

participants who do not connect to a 

video conference by dialing a telephone 

number, and to prevent waste, fraud, or 

abuse of the TRS Fund. 

54. As a preliminary matter, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which IP CTS is currently used 

in video conferences, as well as the 

extent of demand and additional 

benefits likely to result from its 

availability on an integrated basis. There 

are a number of captioning solutions 

that are now or may soon be available 

in the video conferencing context for 

people with hearing loss, including 

captions provided by the IVCS provider, 

CART and other fee-based captioning 

services, and captioning applications 

provided by various large and small 

technology companies. The Commission 

seeks comment on the extent of 

additional demand and additional 

benefits likely to result from the 

availability of integrated IP CTS in 

video conferences. What factors would 

lead a video conference participant to 

request integrated IP CTS captions when 

the IVCS platform offers native 

captioning and participants can view 

captioning from another source on their 

own screen? To what extent do video 

conference participants who need 

captioning currently use IP CTS rather 

than other sources of captioning, and to 

what extent would they be likely to use 

integrated IP CTS, if available? If a video 

conference participant invites IP CTS 

captioning on an integrated basis to the 

call, will participants be able to control 

the size, font, and placement of the 

captions? Should the Commission adopt 

any other restrictions on the use of 

integrated IP CTS captions to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse? 

55. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether any amendments to the 

current call detail requirements of the 

Commission’s rules are necessary to 

facilitate review and approval of 

compensation requests for the provision 

of IP CTS in video conferences on an 

integrated basis. 

56. To prevent billing of the TRS 

Fund for duplicative captioning, the 

Commission proposes to adopt a similar 

rule to that adopted for VRS in the 2024 

Video Conferencing Order. Specifically, 

the Commission proposes that, if the 

captions supplied by an IP CTS provider 

can be viewed by all video conference 

participants (rather than only by the 

individual who requested captioning 

from an IP CTS provider), then the 

provider shall not submit more than one 

CDR for that video conference and shall 

not be paid for more than one instance 

of captioning to that video conference. 

In other words, the total compensation 

received by a single IP CTS provider for 

captioning a video conference would 

not exceed the applicable compensation 

rate multiplied by the number of 

minutes in the video conference. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to allow 

compensation for the provision of IP 

CTS in a video conference to an 

individual registered user, on a nonintegrated basis, if the provider is 

already providing IP CTS to all 

participants on an integrated basis, at 

the request of another registered user. 

Further, are there any circumstances in 

which more than one IP CTS provider 

is needed to provide integrated IP CTS 

captioning in a video conference? If not, 

how can the Commission prevent 

duplicative captioning? 

57. Integration of Other Forms of TRS. 

The Commission seeks further comment 

on whether and how it should amend its 

rules to facilitate the provision in video 

conferences of non-internet-based 

TRS—TTY-based TRS, CTS, and STS. 

These services, offered through state 

TRS programs, are intended for use on 

an ordinary telephone line. While users 

of these services may be able to 

participate in a video conference call 

over a voice connection (where 

available), it is unclear whether or how 

these forms of TRS could be integrated 

with video conferencing platforms. 

Further, given the availability of IP CTS, 

which provides the functionality of CTS 

and TTY-based TRS for users with 

internet access, it seems unlikely that 

there would be significant demand for 

integrated provision of these services in 

internet-based video conferences. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

assessment. 

58. IP Relay is a service often used 

with refreshable braille devices and 

screen readers and by the deafblind 

community. Would integration of IP 

Relay with video conferencing service 

platforms improve the ability of these or 

other consumers to participate in video 

conferencing calls? Are there other steps 

the Commission should take to facilitate 

an IP Relay user’s participation in video 

conferences? The Commission seeks 

comment on these issues and any rule 

changes that may be necessary to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 67 

facilitate the integrated provision of IP 

Relay in video conferencing platforms. 

59. Advancing Equity, Diversity, and 

Inclusion. The Commission, as part of 

its continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits, if any, that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how its proposals 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

60. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the 

Commission has prepared the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in document FCC 24–95. 

Written public comments are requested 

on the IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines provided 

in the item. The Commission will send 

a copy of the entire FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

61. Need for, and Objective of, 

Proposed Rules. In document FCC 24– 

95, the Commission proposes to adopt 

additional requirements in part 14 of its 

rules to improve the accessibility of 

IVCS, a form of ACS. First, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to add a part 14 performance objective 

to its rules for video conferencing 

services to provide text-to-speech and 

speech-to-speech capability for 

individuals with speech disabilities, 

and whether to require IVCS platforms 

to provide sign language interpretation, 

and the costs and benefits of such 

actions. The Commission also seeks 

comment on additional part 14 

performance objectives of its rules for 

user controls, video window 

characteristics, and audio description 

and visual image description services. 

Further, the Commission seeks 

comment on part 14 of its rules 

requirements on IVCS platforms for 

persons with cognitive and motor 

disabilities. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether additional 

performance objectives are necessary to 

ensure that equipment and covered 

software are accessible to people with 

disabilities. 

62. The Commission seeks comment 

on additional requirements in part 64 of 

its rules to facilitate the integration of 

TRS with video conferencing services. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether there are objective, bright-line 

guidelines that it could use to determine 

when it would be warranted to 

compensate a VRS provider for sending 

a team of two or more sign language 

interpreters to a video conference call. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should adopt additional 

amendments to its rules to facilitate the 

integrated provision of IP CTS for 

participants within a video conferencing 

platform and how to prevent waste, 

fraud, or abuse of the Interstate TRS 

Fund. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how it could 

adopt rules to facilitate use of analog 

forms of TRS and IP Relay on video 

conferencing calls. 

63. In proposing these amendments to 

part 14 and part 64 of the Commission’s 

rules, the Commission addresses 

comments in the record that recommend 

specific accessibility requirements for 

video conferencing platforms to enable 

individuals with hearing, speech, 

vision, cognitive, and mobility 

disabilities to participate in video 

conference in a manner equivalent to 

the experience of individuals without 

such disabilities. 

64. Legal Basis. The proposed action 

is authorized pursuant to §§ 1, 2, 3, 

(4)(i), (4)(j), 225, and 716 of the Act, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 

154(i), 154(j), 225, 617. 

65. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities Impacted. 

66. If the proposed rules are adopted, 

the rules will affect the obligations of 

providers of IVCS and providers of TRS. 

IVCS can be included within the broad 

economic category of All Other 

Telecommunications. 

67. All Other Telecommunications. 

This industry is comprised of 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Providers of internet 

services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or VoIP 

services, via client-supplied 

telecommunications connections are 

also included in this industry. The SBA 

small business size standard for this 

industry classifies firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less as small. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 

that there were 1,079 firms in this 

industry that operated for the entire 

year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue 

of less than $25 million. Based on this 

data, the Commission estimates that the 

majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms can be 

considered small. 

68. (TRS) Providers. TRS enables 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, deafblind, or who have a 

speech disability to communicate by 

telephone in a manner that is 

functionally equivalent to using voice 

communication services. Internet-based 

TRS connects an individual with a 

hearing or a speech disability to a TRS 

communications assistant using an 

internet Protocol-enabled device via the 

internet, rather than the public switched 

telephone network. VRS one form of 

internet-based TRS, enables people with 

hearing or speech disabilities who use 

sign language to communicate with 

voice telephone users over a broadband 

connection using a video 

communication device. IP CTS another 

form of internet-based TRS, permits a 

person with hearing loss to have a 

telephone conversation while reading 

captions of what the other party is 

saying on an internet-connected device. 

A third form of internet-based TRS, IP 

Relay, permits an individual with a 

hearing or a speech disability to 

communicate in text using an internet 

Protocol-enabled device via the internet, 

rather than using a TTY and the public 

switched telephone network. Providers 

must be certified by the Commission to 

provide VRS and IP CTS and to receive 

compensation from the TRS Fund for 

TRS provided in accordance with 

applicable rules. Analog forms of TRS, 

TTY, Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, 

and Captioned Telephone Service, are 

provided through state TRS programs, 

which also must be certified by the 

Commission. 

69. Neither the Commission nor the 

SBA have developed a small business 

size standard specifically for TRS 

Providers. All Other 

Telecommunications is the closest 

industry with a SBA small business size 

standard. ISPs and VoIP services, via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies 

firms with annual receipts of $35 

million or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 1,079 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of those 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than 

$25 million. Based on Commission data 

there are 14 certified internet-based TRS 

providers and two analog forms of TRS 

providers. The Commission however 

does not compile financial information 

for these providers. Nevertheless, based 

on available information, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers in this industry are small 

entities. 

70. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements. The 

proposed changes, if adopted, would 

impose new or modified reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

obligations on certain small entities that 

provide TRS, IVCS, or manufacturer 

equipment and software for use with 

IVCS. Although, the Commission 

cannot, at present, determine whether 

small entities will have to hire 

professionals to implement and comply 

with the proposed requirements, nor 

can it quantify the cost of compliance 

for small entities, the Commission 

anticipates the information received in 

comments, including cost and benefit 

analyses where requested, will help the 

Commission identify and evaluate 

relevant compliance matters for small 

entities, including compliance costs and 

other burdens that may result from the 

proposals and inquiries the Commission 

makes. The Commission expects that 

the approaches it proposes will have 

minimal cost implications for covered 

entities because many of these 

requirements are part of existing 

reporting processes for these entities. 

Further, the rules themselves include a 

safeguard to ensure that the burden and 

cost of compliance will not be 

unreasonable: compliance is 

conditioned on each objective being 

‘‘achievable,’’ i.e., ‘‘with reasonable 

effort or expense.’’ An achievability 

determination must consider the nature 

and cost of the steps needed to meet the 

requirement, the technical and 

economic impact on the company’s 

operation, the type of operations of the 

company, and the extent to which 

accessible services or equipment are 

already being offered by the company. 

71. Accessibility of IVCS Equipment. 

Part 14 of the Commission’s rules 

requires that providers of ACS— 

including IVCS—and manufacturers of 

equipment used with ACS ensure that 

their services and equipment (including 

associated software) are accessible and 

usable by people with disabilities, 

unless these requirements are not 

achievable. The Commission seeks 

comment on performance standards for 

ensuring equipment used with IVCS are 

accessible and usable by people with 

disabilities. Such performance 

objectives if adopted could modify 

reporting, recordkeeping, and 

compliance obligations of such entities. 

72. IVCS Recordkeeping. The 

Commission’s existing rules require that 

each provider of ACS (including IVCS) 

and each manufacturer of equipment 

used to provide IVCS maintain, in the 

ordinary course of business and for a 

reasonable period, records documenting 

the efforts taken by such manufacturer 

or service provider to implement section 

716 of the Act: information about the 

manufacturer’s or provider’s efforts to 

consult with individuals with 

disabilities; descriptions of the 

accessibility features of its products and 

services; and information about the 

compatibility of such products and 

services with peripheral devices or 

specialized customer premise 

equipment commonly used by 

individuals with disabilities to achieve 

access. If the Commission adopts 

additional performance objectives under 

Part 14 of its rules, it may increase the 

amount of information that entities must 

retain and report under the 

recordkeeping requirement. The time 

and resources needed to fulfill this 

additional recordkeeping should be 

minimal given the ongoing obligation to 

retain such records. 

73. IVCS Reporting. The 

Commission’s existing rules require that 

an officer of each provider of ACS 

(including IVCS) and an officer of each 

manufacturer of equipment (including 

software) used to provide ACS submit to 

the Commission an annual certificate 

that records are being kept in 

accordance with the above 

recordkeeping requirements, unless 

such manufacturer or provider has been 

exempted from compliance with section 

716 of the Act under applicable rules. 

The Commission anticipates that the 

form and content of the reporting will 

be unchanged, but the office may 

require additional time to confirm the 

records for any new performance 

objectives are kept in accordance with 

the reporting requirements. 

74. TRS Amendments. The proposed 

amendments to the Commission’s rules 

governing TRS are designed to facilitate 

the use of TRS communications 

assistants CAs in video conferences, 

while minimizing the risk of waste, 

fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. 

These modifications would only apply 

to an entity that provides TRS to the 

extent that users of that entity opts to 

participate in video conference calls. 

Otherwise, the TRS compliance and 

reporting requirements remain 

consistent with existing reporting 

obligations and the Commission’s 

proposals would only clarify those 

obligations without changing the burden 

to small entities. 

75. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Impact on Small Entities, 

and Significant Alternatives Considered. 

Document FCC 24–95, seeks comments 

on a number of alternatives that may 

impact small entities. The proposed part 

14 of the Commission’s performance 

objectives would be subject to options to 

make a product or service accessible by 

incorporating accessibility features into 

the product or service itself or by 

relying on third party applications, 

peripheral devices, software, hardware, 

or CPE that are available to the 

consumer at nominal cost. All Part 14 

performance objectives of the 

Commission’s rules are also subject to 

an ‘‘achievability’’ standard that takes 

into account the cost of compliance and 

the nature of the impact of compliance 

on a specific entity. In addition, the 

rules provide an exemption for 

customized services and equipment and 

authorize the grant of waivers for 

multipurpose services and equipment. 

These flexibility and achievability 

conditions apply equally to all covered 

entities, including small entities. 

76. The proposed requirements would 

apply equally to all IVCS providers and 

are necessary to ensure video 

conferencing is accessible to and usable 

by people with disabilities. The 

amendments to the TRS rules will only 

apply to the extent a small entity TRS 

provider allows its users to participate 

in integrated IVCS calls. The 

Commission seeks comment on multiple 

alternatives to ensure it is able to 

implement rules to facilitate the 

availability of and compensation for 

multiple communications assistants 

during a video conference call, while 

minimizing the potential risk of waste, 

fraud, and abuse to the TRS Fund in 

allowing such practices. Further 

developing this record will allow the 

Commission to minimize potential 

burdens to small entities, while 

protecting the integrity of the TRS Fund. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2025 / Proposed Rules 69 

77. Document FCC 24–95 seeks 

comment from all interested parties. 

Small entities are encouraged to bring to 

the Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns they may have with the 

proposals outlined. The Commission 

expects to consider the economic 

impact on, and alternatives for, small 

entities as identified in comments filed 

in response to document FCC 24–95, in 

reaching its final conclusions and taking 

action in this proceeding. 

78. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with, the 

Commission’s Proposals. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30501 Filed 12–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1